 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Collie Concessions3/30/2005
ons challenges the basis for the superior court's order. We reverse.
1. "A compensable injury for purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act must arise out of and in the course of employment." It is the general rule that accidents occurring while an employee is traveling to and from work do not arise out of and in the course of employment, and therefore injuries sustained during that time are not compensable. However, exceptions have been made to the general rule allowing the award of benefits
where the employer furnishes transportation; or where the employee is doing some act permitted or required by the employer and beneficial to the employer while en route to and from work; or where the employee is going to and from parking facilities provided by the employer [also known as the "parking lot" exception]; or in instances where an employee is on call and furnishes or is reimbursed for his transportation costs.
Bruce's argument arises in connection with the parking lot exception.
In Tate v. Bruno's Inc./Food Max, we explained the exception as follows: "when an employee is injured in, or going to and from, a parking lot which is owned or maintained by the employer, the incident is compensable under workers' compensation since the injury arose during the employee's ingress or egress from employment." In the seminal case of Federal Ins. Co. v. Coram, we found this situation analogous to those "where the employee first reports to one part of the employer's premises for instructions, assignment, clock punching, drawing tools, etc., and then must proceed to another portion of the premises to begin his actual duties," the rationale being that the parking lot is considered to be a part of the employer's premises. In several cases since Federal Ins. Co., we have applied this exception to allow benefits where the employee was injured on a public street during ingress or egress from/to the employer's parking lot. However, we have refused to extend the exception to cover injuries sustained going to or from parking lots not owned, controlled, or maintained by the employer or those occurring in such parking lots. The facts in this case are more closely analogized to the latter cases.
In Tate, the employee was involved in an automobile accident while she was leaving a public parking lot that was not owned, controlled or maintained by the employer but was used by its employees as well as patrons and employees of other stores in the shopping center. We followed the general rule that injuries sustained on the way to or from work are not compensable. Similarly, in City of Atlanta v. Spearman, the facts of which are analogous to this case, the employee was not allowed to recover workers' compensation benefits. There, the employee fell and injured herself while walking from the parking lot to her place of employment. As in this case, the employer in Spearman did not own, maintain, or control the parking lot but was allocated a certain number of parking spaces therein. We held that control over the allocation of parking spaces did not equate to control and direction over the parking lot itself. As the employer did not control the parking lot, it was not responsible for the injuries occurring on the route to its premises. In Hill v. Omni Hotel at CNN Center, we declined to extend the exception where the employee slipped and fell after entering the CNN Center on her way to work at the Omni Hotel, which could be accessed through the CNN Center. We found that the area of the building where the employee fell was not a part of her employer's premises because it was not owned, controlled, or maintained by the employer.
In this case, there is no dispute that the parking lot
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Georgia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|